Fears of gambling-related corruption forever haunt professional sport, as not only cricket but football, horse racing and tennis have been awash with suspicion. The sport that loses its integrity risks alienating its public its sponsors, and can soon be plunged into financial despair.

When Lord Condon stood down last month after 10 years as head of the ICC's anti-corruption and security unit (ACSU), he was confident that international cricket had been largely cleaned up. "You will never entirely eradicate fixing from a game of cricket," he predicted, with what may prove to have been great prescience, but he added: "I am absolutely confident that there has been a seismic shift in attitude from players in the last 10 years."

Condon has ceaselessly advocated that as match-rigging, spot-fixing, call it what you will, often involves organised crime, governments around the world should follow the UK's example by introducing specific criminal legislation that makes it an offence to cheat in sport for gaming purposes.

The alleged Pakistani fixer Mazhar Majeed, who claims to represent up to 10 of the current squad, has been arrested by the Metropolitan police under suspicion of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers. Lord Condon's evidence five years ago when the Gaming Act went through parliament ensured that section 42 of the Act would address that.

But the distinction has always been clear. Criminal law deals with illegal gambling; it is down to the sports bodies to govern the behaviour of the sports men and women under their jurisdiction.

Even police in Delhi, known for investigating allegations of corruption within cricket more assiduously than most, have never attempted to have players jailed for their part in any proven crimes.

International cricket has been among those leading the way in establishing an anti-corruption unit to marshal the sport but the ultimate punishment for players found guilty has always been a life ban within the sport rather than any custodial sentence.

Ben Gunn, a sports betting integrity specialist and former chief constable of Cambridgeshire, sat on the Parry review which led earlier this year to the creation of a Sports Betting Intelligence Unit. The unit is intended to stir the Gambling Commission into action when it suspects malpractice.

"Whether the involvement of any sportsmen and women in illegal gambling should constitute a criminal act is a moot point," said Gunn. "But criminal law needs to be proportionate to the risk. The general view has always been that acts during professional sport should be the prime responsibility of sports governing bodies."

Before this series the ACSU explained to both sides what was expected. It is a process the players now know only too well: no mobile phones in the dressing room and strictly limited access, often amounting to mug shots in high-security areas of those allowed admission, a policy intended to counter potential terrorism as well as corruption. Awareness, security, intelligence.

England's captain, Andrew Strauss, explained the regime that is now in place. "Simple things are no phones in the dressing room. They also have the ACSU officer who is at every Test match. He will come in and check that everything is being adhered to.

"The other thing that they keep drilling into us is that, if at any time you suspect anything that might be inappropriate whether to you or one of your team-mates, you have a responsibility to report it; otherwise you could be seen to be a part of it one way or another."

It was more than nine years ago, in April 2001, that Sir Paul Condon as he was then, a recently retired commissioner of the Metropolitan police, produced the damning report that laid the foundations for cricket's fight against corruption.

Condon spoke of "a climate of silence, apathy, ignorance and fear". The report concluded there had been "at least 20 years of corruption linked to betting on international cricket matches", adding "corrupt practices and deliberate under-performance have permeated all aspects of the game". He complained thatcorrupters were able to mix freely with players.

By the time Lord Condon stepped down in July this year he was able to say: "If we go back to those bad old days of the late 1990s, it's easy to forget that cricket was pretty much in crisis. Its credibility was in threat and so was its commercial viability. Sponsors were pulling out because it was clear there had been a whole series of fixed matches in every form of the game, from Test cricket to World Cup tournaments.

"Fixing needs only two things: a cricket match and the ability to bet on it. It is the most bet-upon sport in the world. Nothing else comes close."